Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
115 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Are religions mutually exclusive? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've seen this thrown around as if it was fact but haven't really heard it explained. Obviously, in one sense they aren't mutually exclusive as they do all exist, simultaneously even. So what exactly do you mean when you say it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Actually being able to coexists does not mean they are mutually exclusive, Being a vegetarian and eating meat are mutually exclusive, that does not mean that Vegetarians and meat eaters cannot co-exist. The same with religious belief, two Christians can hold mutually opposing (and contradictory) opinions as to the nature (and even existence) of god, but they will not explode if they come into contact with each other.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Actually being able to coexists does not mean they are mutually exclusive, Being a vegetarian and eating meat are mutually exclusive, that does not mean that Vegetarians and meat eaters cannot co-exist. The same with religious belief, two Christians can hold mutually opposing (and contradictory) opinions as to the nature (and even existence) of god, but they will not explode if they come into contact with each other.


Are you defining opposing and contradictory as exclusive then?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Actually being able to coexists does not mean they are mutually exclusive, Being a vegetarian and eating meat are mutually exclusive, that does not mean that Vegetarians and meat eaters cannot co-exist. The same with religious belief, two Christians can hold mutually opposing (and contradictory) opinions as to the nature (and even existence) of god, but they will not explode if they come into contact with each other.


Are you defining opposing and contradictory as exclusive then?


ex·clu·sive
   [ik-skloo-siv, -ziv]
adjective
1.
not admitting of something else; incompatible: (mutually exclusive plans of action), (mutually exclusive system of belife).

mutually exclusive Adj. 1.
- unable to be both true at the same time
contradictory
incompatible - not compatible; "incompatible personalities"; "incompatible colors"
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, and mutual:

1. Having the same relationship each to the other: mutual predators.
2. Directed and received by each toward the other; reciprocal: mutual respect.
3. Possessed in common: mutual interests.

It's a bit of an oxymoron. However, the phrase has its own meaning:

Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time.

That's how I use the term. How do you use it?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
I've seen this thrown around as if it was fact but haven't really heard it explained. Obviously, in one sense they aren't mutually exclusive as they do all exist, simultaneously even. So what exactly do you mean when you say it?

The answer is more complicated than might at first appear. In simple terms, both yes and no.

By "mutually exclusive" I presume the OP intends (and I use this meaning myself) that if person X has some set of arguably internally consistent beliefs and/or practices that in any pair of religions X and Y, religions X and Y are mutually exclusive if and only if the person cannot believe/observe religion X and religion Y simultaneously in a self-consistent manner.

Take as an example Judaism, a Jew cannot be a Christian or a Muslim consistently because Judaism forbids a Jew from being a practising Christian or Muslim. For non-Jews, neither religion is forbidden, albeit some forms on Christianity can be problematic.

Not all religions are like this though. Certainly Roman and Greek forms of pagnism were not which is why modern people so conflate the two. Ancient forms of paganism were generally like this.

Even today Taoism for example permits other beliefs because Taoists offer do nt view Taoism as a religion per se.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
religions X and Y are mutually exclusive if and only if the person cannot believe/observe religion X and religion Y simultaneously in a self-consistent manner.


Self-consistent seems to be the key here. So even if you think a Messianic Jew (a Christian Jew) is impossible, one could still hold such beliefs self-consistently.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
Yes, and mutual:

1. Having the same relationship each to the other: mutual predators.
2. Directed and received by each toward the other; reciprocal: mutual respect.
3. Possessed in common: mutual interests.

It's a bit of an oxymoron. However, the phrase has its own meaning:

Two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time.

That's how I use the term. How do you use it?


Depends on context, yes two evfents cannot occour at the same time. But we are not talking about events. So unless we are talking about the same thing (ideas as opposed to evetns) then we cannot ever reach an understanding.

mutually exclusive
unable to be both true at the same time
contradictory
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
So unless we are talking about the saem thing (ideas as opposed to evetns) then we cannot ever reach an understanding.


That's the purpose of this thread.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
So unless we are talking about the saem thing (ideas as opposed to evetns) then we cannot ever reach an understanding.


That's the purpose of this thread.


So are we talking about events or ideas?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
whac3 wrote:
religions X and Y are mutually exclusive if and only if the person cannot believe/observe religion X and religion Y simultaneously in a self-consistent manner.


Self-consistent seems to be the key here. So even if you think a Messianic Jew (a Christian Jew) is impossible, one could still hold such beliefs self-consistently.

No, because the Jewish part would exclude it. Christianity is avoda zara for a Jew. Therefore these cannot be self-consistent.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
quozl wrote:
whac3 wrote:
religions X and Y are mutually exclusive if and only if the person cannot believe/observe religion X and religion Y simultaneously in a self-consistent manner.


Self-consistent seems to be the key here. So even if you think a Messianic Jew (a Christian Jew) is impossible, one could still hold such beliefs self-consistently.

No, because the Jewish part would exclude it. Christianity is avoda zara for a Jew. Therefore these cannot be self-consistent.


Also I would argue that whilst Christianity does not preclude someone being Jewish such things as belief in the afterlife and the nature of god makes being a Christian incompatible with being Jewish. There are just too many differences for it to work.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
quozl wrote:
whac3 wrote:
religions X and Y are mutually exclusive if and only if the person cannot believe/observe religion X and religion Y simultaneously in a self-consistent manner.


Self-consistent seems to be the key here. So even if you think a Messianic Jew (a Christian Jew) is impossible, one could still hold such beliefs self-consistently.

No, because the Jewish part would exclude it. Christianity is avoda zara for a Jew. Therefore these cannot be self-consistent.


I thought you considered people Jewish based only on what the law says, and the law did not define who was or was not Jewish dependent on their actions or beliefs (sometimes)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
whac3 wrote:
quozl wrote:
whac3 wrote:
religions X and Y are mutually exclusive if and only if the person cannot believe/observe religion X and religion Y simultaneously in a self-consistent manner.


Self-consistent seems to be the key here. So even if you think a Messianic Jew (a Christian Jew) is impossible, one could still hold such beliefs self-consistently.

No, because the Jewish part would exclude it. Christianity is avoda zara for a Jew. Therefore these cannot be self-consistent.


I thought you considered people Jewish based only on what the law says, and the law did not define who was or was not Jewish dependent on their actions or beliefs (sometimes)?

Specifically, the law forbids a person who is a Jew from observing any other people's religion or customs. A person who does so is a Jew in the sense of being obligated by the Law but is not a Jew in the sense of having none of the privileges of the Law. The term used is apikorsis but there are a LOT of legal technicalities that must be fulfilled.

In practical terms then a Jew who becomes a Christian is violating Torah and in that sense is legally a Jew for obligations. In no other legal;sense are they a Jew.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Belgium
flag msg tools
Meaningless means there's a strong limit to how much I can mess up!
badge
This overtext is not in use.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Specifically, the law forbids a person who is a Jew from observing any other people's religion or customs. A person who does so is a Jew in the sense of being obligated by the Law but is not a Jew in the sense of having none of the privileges of the Law. The term used is apikorsis but there are a LOT of legal technicalities that must be fulfilled.

In practical terms then a Jew who becomes a Christian is violating Torah and in that sense is legally a Jew for obligations. In no other legal;sense are they a Jew.


So then it would be more accurate, in your view, to say someone can be a Jew and a Christian, but one would be a Jew that is violating the Law.

Would it be significantly different, legally speaking, from a Jew who violated the Law in some other way? For example, to pick a cliché, by eating bacon?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dolphinandrew wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Specifically, the law forbids a person who is a Jew from observing any other people's religion or customs. A person who does so is a Jew in the sense of being obligated by the Law but is not a Jew in the sense of having none of the privileges of the Law. The term used is apikorsis but there are a LOT of legal technicalities that must be fulfilled.

In practical terms then a Jew who becomes a Christian is violating Torah and in that sense is legally a Jew for obligations. In no other legal;sense are they a Jew.


So then it would be more accurate, in your view, to say someone can be a Jew and a Christian, but one would be a Jew that is violating the Law.

Would it be significantly different, legally speaking, from a Jew who violated the Law in some other way? For example, to pick a cliché, by eating bacon?

Yes, that's correct but it is treated differently.

A person who "converts" is regarded as taking on the laws/customs/practices of another nation. If they are considered legally competnet to know what they are doing and the customs/practices/laws cannot be regarded as something like a pragmatic innovation (e.g., borrowing technology) then the person is considered to be committing avoda zara, usually translated as idolatry but more accurately treason.

For all other crimes, judges are required to find mitigating circumstances if at all possible. Avoda zara is the sole exception to this rule. The only mitigating circumstance is not realizing what you were doing was avoda zara and the bar is set high.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So we're throwing out "self-consistent" now?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Charters
United States
Chandler
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think the term 'mutually exclusive' in regards to religion refers to the 'truth' of religion. Think of 2 largest religions on the earth. Both cannot be true....the truth of one 'excludes' the other from being true. If Christ is the only begotton son of God then Christianity is true and Islam cannot be 'true.' If Mohammed was Allah's greatest prophet (and Christ kneeled behind Mohammed when he prayed to Mecca as the Muslims teach) then Islam is true and Christianity is false.

I see most religions (religion being something that describes God's will for man....and the impact of our actions on the after life) as mutually exclusive in regards to the truth.

Different religions explain God's will for man in different and often conflicting ways and therefore cannot all be 'true' at the same time.

Here's what Paul said in Ephesians 4: "one Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all." So while a Muslim may think this is a pretty good explanation of Allah and Islam (except for the baptism part) Paul's point is that there is only one.....not two, three, or hundreds.

So I see the term 'mutual exclusive' in regards to religion pointing out that it's not really a viable position to say that all religions are equally true. the conflict in doctrine makes them mutually exclusive and therefore if one is true the other is not.

The difficulty of religion is to understand which religion most closely aligns to the will of God for man.

Let me know if you think I've missed the point on this.
7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
So we're throwing out "self-consistent" now?


How can two things be "self-consistent", surley that term implies a singular thing? Surley if we are talking about two thing that would be "mutualy consistant"?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
So we're throwing out "self-consistent" now?

No, you're just tryng to re-define it. Self-consistent means both religions are consistent in the fusion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
quozl wrote:
So we're throwing out "self-consistent" now?

No, you're just tryng to re-define it. Self-consistent means both religions are consistent in the fusion.


It does? I thought it meant each person defines the consistency for him or herself
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
quozl wrote:
whac3 wrote:
quozl wrote:
So we're throwing out "self-consistent" now?

No, you're just tryng to re-define it. Self-consistent means both religions are consistent in the fusion.


It does? I thought it meant each person defines the consistency for him or herself


Self`-con`sist´ent
a. 1. Consistent with one's self or with itself; not deviation from the ordinary standard by which the conduct is guided; logically consistent throughout; having each part consistent with the rest.

So in fact it means that a person views reamians consistant, with his views, but it does not mean that he defines that consistancy. So if some one says I love all types of cheese, but I hate Chedar they are being inconsistant, no matter how much they think they are being consistant. But we are not talking about an invividual, but differant groups of individuals.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom McPhee
Scotland
Glasgow/ Elgin/ Ullapool (Garve)
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
It's probably my line of work, but I've met someone who was utterly convinced they were a (dead) member of royalty (exact details changed to protect confidentiality), but who was quite happy to live in a shitty miserable damp east end of Glasgow flat. I come across this often. In less extreme cases I frequently come across people who you can see doing cognitive acrobatics to overcome their cognitive dissonance.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tommcphee wrote:
It's probably my line of work, but I've met someone who was utterly convinced they were a (dead) member of royalty (exact details changed to protect confidentiality), but who was quite happy to live in a shitty miserable damp east end of Glasgow flat. I come across this often. In less extreme cases I frequently come across people who you can see doing cognitive acrobatics to overcome their cognitive dissonance.


I assume they did not think they were dead?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
True Blue Jon
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
So in fact it means that a person views reamians consistant, with his views, but it does not mean that he defines that consistancy. So if some one says I love all types of cheese, but I hate Chedar they are being inconsistant, no matter how much they think they are being consistant. But we are not talking about an invividual, but differant groups of individuals.


Got it. So if an individual believes that Bob is the only god and then says that Joe is a god too, he is not being self-consistent.

You could also say that Bobism (the belief that Bob is the only god) is mutually exclusive with Joeism (the belief that Joe is the only god).

But what about JoeBobism (the belief that Joe and Bob are the only gods)? Is JoeBobism mutually exclusive with Bobism and Joeism?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.